“In our view, Maryland law implicates the core protection of the Second Amendment—’the right of law-abiding responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home,’ District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 635 (2008), and we are compelled by Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010), as well as our own precedent in the wake of these decisions, to conclude that the burden is substantial and strict scrutiny is the applicable standard of review for Plaintiffs’ Second Amendment claim.” With that, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals struck down Maryland’s “assault weapon” and “large capacity” magazine bans Governor Martin O’Malley (above) rammed through after Newtown. Make the jump for the NRA’s take on the win . . .

Fairfax, Va.— Chris W. Cox, the executive director of the National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action, issued the following statement in reaction to today’s ruling by the federal 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in the Kolbe v. Maryland case. The case challenges the legality of Maryland’s 2013 ban on so-called assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. The 2-1 decision sends the gun-control law back to a lower court for review because it “implicates the core protection of the Second Amendment.”

“The Fourth Circuit’s ruling is an important victory for the Second Amendment. Maryland’s ban on commonly owned firearms and magazines clearly violates our fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense. The highest level of judicial scrutiny should apply when governments try to restrict our Second Amendment freedoms.” – Chris W. Cox, executive director of the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action

Established in 1871, the National Rifle Association is America’s oldest civil rights and sportsmen’s group. More than five million members strong, NRA continues to uphold the Second Amendment and advocates enforcement of existing laws against violent offenders to reduce crime. The Association remains the nation’s leader in firearm education and training for law-abiding gun owners, law enforcement and the armed services. Follow the NRA on social at Facebook.com/NationalRifleAssociation and Twitter @NRA.

Man I hope this turns out ok, but am dubious of the SCotUS reviewing anything 2A, and especially if 2016 doesn’t fall our way. If every reader on this Blog took ONE other person to vote this year, that would be a good thing…

Remember the last Republican president? He appointed John Roberts, the same John Roberts who voted in favor of the unconstitutional Obamacare because “We ruled in favor of conservatives on the last two cases, so I figured we should rule in favor of the liberals so people don’t think we’re biased”.

“the same John Roberts who voted in favor of the unconstitutional Obamacare”

Are you referring to the “individual mandate”? National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius? If so, Roberts didn’t vote in favor of it. Roberts wrote that such a mandate was unconstitutional. Roberts did write that the tax penalty falls within Congress’ taxing power.

“The Affordable Care Act is constitutional in part and unconstitutional in part. The individual mandate cannot be upheld as an exercise of Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause. That Clause authorizes Congress to regulate interstate commerce, not to order individuals to engage in it. In this case, however, it is reasonable to construe what Congress has done as increasing taxes on those who have a certain amount of income, but choose to go without health insurance. Such legislation is within Congress’s power to tax.”

In U.S. v. South-Eastern Underwriters Association, the Supreme Court articulated that “[n]o commercial enterprise of any kind which conducts its activities across state lines has been held to be wholly beyond the regulatory power of Congress under the Commerce Clause We cannot make an exception of the business of insurance.” The interstate market for individual healthcare coverage without an individual mandate, and regulated under state and local laws, creates an undue burden on the national economy. Therefore, an individual’s decision not to purchase healthcare coverage through an insurance policy should be treated as a commercial enterprise….For one to refuse to purchase healthcare insurance is in reality a commercial venture because that individual’s decision cannot be separated from an aggregate burden on the national healthcare service market.34 Under the rationale of United States v. SouthEastern Underwriters Association, Congress may use its Commerce Clause power to regulate the healthcare insurance market, and therefore promoting national welfare in healthcare services by making healthcare more affordable under PPACA. The collective impact of the refusal to purchase health insurance in the healthcare market creates an undue burden on the national economy

Thus making a decision not to participate in commerce a commercial enterprise, and the commerce clause applies. Essentially, the government can force you to be a business and compel you to comply with the commerce clause.

Earlier SCOTUS deemed withholding wheat from the general market violated the commerce clause:

Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942). The US Supreme Court ruled a farmer must engage in interstate commerce (that is, is construed to be covered by the commerce clause… even if appellee’s activity be local and though it may not be regarded as commerce, it may still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce….The Court decided that Filburn’s wheat growing activities reduced the amount of wheat he would buy for animal feed on the open market, which is traded nationally (interstate), and is therefore within the purview of the Commerce Clause. Although Filburn’s relatively small amount of production of more wheat than he was allotted would not affect interstate commerce itself, the cumulative actions of thousands of other farmers just like Filburn would certainly become substantial. Therefore, according to the court, Filburn’s production could be regulated by the federal government.”

Yeah DonS, except that the politicians specifically said it wasn’t a tax but penalty before changing the rules in the Senate to ram it through. It didn’t become a “tax” until the government’s lawyers got into court. The law was originally written as “all or nothing”. Parts couldn’t be stripped out. John Roberts would have done well to review the original intent of the ACA authors and ruled as the authors said in the House and Senate chambers.

Sucker, the GOP will throw you under the bus the first chance they get. A president McCain or a president Romney would have gotten Sandy Hook gun bans passed. The two major parties are just different sides of the same corrupt coin.

“Thus making a decision not to participate in commerce a commercial enterprise, and the commerce clause applies. Essentially, the government can force you to be a business and compel you to comply with the commerce clause.”

If you read the 2012 SCOTUS decision involving the “Individual Mandate” (NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT BUSINESS v. SEBELIUS, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, 648 F. 3d 1235), you’ll see that the government’s Commerce argument was expressly rejected:
“The individual mandate forces individuals into commerce precisely because they elected to refrain from commercial activity. Such a law cannot be sustained under a clause authorizing Congress to “regulate
Commerce.””

The individual mandate was “upheld” only insofar as Congress can levy a tax for just about any reason it wants. Congress cannot force you to buy health insurance and claim it’s a valid exercise of its Commerce Clause power; Congress can, however, tax you if you elect not to purchase health insurance.

Again–“split circuits”–they will need to hear it to resolve the split. Which doesn’t necessarily mean they will, but usual practice militates in favor of hearing it. If the ruling on remand is appealed again, that is. Glad the “strict scrutiny” standard was explicitly called for.

“Yes they did. But this time, there is a circuit split on point. They can’t just ignore that.”

Sure they can. And more importantly, are we sure we don’t want them to? The court hasn’t even been able to muster FOUR justices to hear a gun case. I went to school before common core, but I seem to remember that 4 is less than 5 and we need 5 to win.

Yes, but whatever reason caused them to reject that case presumably still applies, like a concern by either side that there are not enough votes to win. If it goes to this court, I’m not confident how it will go.

SCOTUS also typically hears cases in which Circuit Courts directly contradict Supreme Court precedent, but they refused to hear Friedman v. Highland Park. However, I do have higher hopes now that SCOTUS will fix what many of the Circuits have screwed up.

The Fourth Circuit will review this En Banc and then overrule its own ruling.

Our courts are a joke. The ruling you get is nothing more than a lottery where the outcome of your case depends NOT on facts and the rule of law … but on the political allegiance of whichever judge/s hear your case.

Having read the decision, they have struck down only one part of the lower court decision: the application of intermediate scrutiny. They have affirmed 2/3 of the lower court ruling and have remanded it back to them, having told them to apply strict scrutiny.

The lower court can simply declare that they applied “strict scrutiny” and arrived at the same conclusion. Kolbe would be required to appeal again. At that point (if not before, like now) the state could request en banc. Even then, should there be a split between federal courts, SCOTUS is not mandated to intervene; it is the choice of the majority of SC judges.

This is not a victory, it is a delaying action at best; a delaying action at worst.

I’m not a lawyer, but having looked at the reasoning of the majority and how the dissent (on the 2A issue) had to dance around and wave the bloody shirt, it looks like a real tough sandwich for the State of Maryland.

A real problem, according to the majority, is that the state wasn’t “regulating” firearms so much as banning wholesale a large segment of commonly-possessed-for-lawful-purposes firearms, which, according to a sensible reading of Heller, is a no-no. Given that, and a number of other salient points in the majority opinion, the state is going to have quite a time trying to make it over the bar of strict scrutiny.

I was very pleased with the majority opinion on the 2A rights portion of the case but I was unhappy with the fact that they upheld the lower court ruling regarding the 13A issue. I was relatively indifferent on the 3rd issue dealing with what constitutes a “copy” of a firearm, but maybe that’s because I was getting bored by the time I got to that section.

I think it is interesting, not not unexpected, how the court upheld the retired LEO carve-out. That I found more interesting is how they didn’t extend it to active-duty or retired military, since two of their three reasons that a retired LEO =/= a “normal” civvy apply.

I think that setting LEOs, especially retired LEOs, apart like they are doing is a dangerous thing. Are police civilians? Apparently not.

An order to review a judges ruling is not an order for re-trial. The lower court judge can set a hearing for only the attorneys, decide the review with the attorneys met “strict scrutiny”, and declare the same judgement. The lower court does not have to send something to the appeals court for approval. And don’t forget, this is Maryland we are talking about. The 3-judge appeals panel did not reject (vacate) the lower court ruling, nor any part of it. The appeals court simply remanded (returned) the case for further action by the lower court. The clue to how the game will end is in the fact that almost all the lower court ruling escaped criticism (and none of it was “vacated”). The appeals court gave Maryland the keys to getting a successful verdict, without actually writing it,

Yeah but if they do that (say they applied strict scrutiny) and allow the ban to stand, it still can be appealed again… and from the looks of it, the appeals court would still overturn the ban.

Todays decision was written by the Chief Justice of the 4th Circuit, and it looks like he really has his head turned on straight regarding upholding law versus pushing opinions. He’s a Clinton appointee. The dissenting justice was another Clinton appointee and he reduced hiimself to waving the bloody shirt against the other two justices claiming that their decision will cost lives in mass shootings. lol. What an incompetent boob.

It will take at least one more year for the lower court to review the case again (supposedly under strict scrutiny this time) and issue another ruling. And the lower court will simply change the wording of their rationale without changing their actual decision. Then the plaintiff will appeal and it will take yet another 2 years before the Fourth Circuit overturns the lower court. And then the Attorney General of Maryland will request a stay of the ruling while waiting for the Fourth Circuit to review their own decision En Banc … which will take another 6 to 12 months only to revert to the lower court ruling.

Thus the courts will chew up another 4 years before this thing can even think of heading to the United States Supreme Court … which will take every bit of yet another 2 years to hear the case, if they even agree to hear the case. Oh, and if the U.S. Supreme Court hears the case, I imagine they will take at least a year to render their decision.

So, by the time all is said and done, we might get a final ruling on this from the U.S. Supreme Court in 7 years. Meanwhile, who knows what turnover we might see in the White House and the U.S. Supreme Court in the next 7 years.

I have no idea how those judges can stand to look at themselves in their mirrors knowing that they are suppressing fundamental, Constitutionally enumerated rights.

They have ruled that the 2nd Amendment does protect semi-automatic weapons and standard capacity magazines. This is the meat and potatoes of the argument. the other two points that they upheld (Denial of Equal Protection under the Law, and the Vagueness of the word “Copies”) do not matter. The LEO carve out is pointless when the citizenry can Keep and Bear the same arms. The vagueness of the word “Copies” is no longer a problem due to the fact that you do not have to buy a Colt AR-15, but you can buy a Daniel Defense AR-15 copy.

This is a huge victory for Marylanders. Before 2013, they had a Mag cap of 20 rounds. Now that is gone as well in this ruling.

Dude, you clearly didn’t understand what the court did. The law still stands. The only thing that happened here was that the circuit sent the case back to the district court to decide again, this time under a different level of scrutiny. The district court isn’t going to change their opinion, they’re just going to come up with different reasoning.

This decision basically said that the district court erred in applying intermediate scrutiny and they need to retry it because strict scrutiny was the appropriate standard for case like this that places such a burden on the 2nd Amendment.

Under strict scrutiny, the district court will likely have to strike down the law… but who knows what the Judge will decide until they do. For now, both sides have to prepare their cases to retry it under strict scrutiny.

“The guys out in Cally owe you an entire train load of beer.”
And the long suffering people of NJ, who have lived under the boot-heel of the Commi…I mean Democrats that run the state. I’d love to see them have to wipe their behinds with their AW ban.

And now we have a circuit split on AWB and high capacity magazines. Unfortunately, it looks like the Supremes don’t have the votes or the cojones to make uniform constitutional laws when it comes to the 2A.

Californians are going to love it. Leftist illegals, brainwashed coolaid drinkers, and die hard coastal libtards are going to hate it…… So far the government out here has ignored heller and mcdonald, and our 10 day waiting period has been struck down but there is still a 10 day waiting period. They are doing what all tyrants do when they feel power start to slip away; they are becoming more tyranical (look at the laws coming down the pipe out here).

Yep. The 10 day waiting period still exists in all of its unconstitutional glory. I do get a chuckle when I think of how many firearms I have in the system, and how much I deduct on my taxes fir guns, ammo, range fees, etc. Somewhere another unconstitutional computer program is watching all of us very closely.

It does not strike down the ban. The lower courts ruling was vacated, and the case remanded to the lower court for a rehearing, only applying strict scrutiny this time. The Maryland ban is still very much in effect, and will be for some time. The wheels of justice turn slowly, when they turn at all.

They vacated the ruling of the district court and remanded it back to them to utilize strict scrutiny. And then they told them how to rule on the 2nd Amendment protections of semi-automatic weapons and SCMs. This was an awesome maneuver by the panel to prevent an En Banc ruling against them. The explanation they gave to the lower court leaves them no other option but to strike down the FSA.

The explanation they [Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals] gave to the lower court leaves them no other option but to strike down the FSA.

Ha! Boy, are you ever naive. Other Circuit Courts of Appeal had no qualms giving a big middle finger to the U.S. Supreme Court’s Heller and MacDonald decisions. What makes you think this lower court will have any qualms doing the same to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals?

As I said in my other comment on this thread, all the lower court will do is reword their dicta (rationale) and maintain the same ruling. Meanwhile, the ban still stands … and will continue to stand for several more years as this case slowly percolates up to the U.S. Supreme Court … which will invariably reschedule consideration of the case several times and eventually refuse to hear it.

Given the frequency with which lower courts and appeals courts are ignoring Heller and McDonald, the trial court judge could simply certify that he read the appeals court order, reviewed under strict scrutiny (what proof is required of that?), and reached the same conclusion. In addition, an immediate request for en banc hearing could be issued. And a rejection of en banc can be appealed to that court. After which, Kolbe can appeal the en banc decision (likely to be a reversal of the 3-judge panel). Do not forget or underestimate the ruling in a Chicago area case where a federal judge decided simply making a community FEEL safer passes strict scrutiny in restricting gun rights.

They vacated the ruling and remanded it back instead of ruling on it directly. This was pure genius on their part. Because they gave some pretty explicit instructions to how the lower court should rule and they left little room (if any) to rule in favor of the state. Doing this, prevents a possible overturn in an En Banc ruling of the 4th Circuit.

Yep, you are right. The district courts ruling upholding the ban on so-called assault weapons and standard capacity magazines by the district court was “vacated” and “remanded” with instructions. 1. You must apply the strict scrutiny standard regarding a constitutionally protected right. 2. You will follow are instructions in the opinion. Pretty clear to me.

Actually, all this case does is require the lower court to go back and redo its decision while using strict scrutiny. We’ll see what they come up with, but this a strong legal precedent for 2A cases in the 4th Circuit.

No, it does much more than that, please read my post above and the one above that. Vacated(meaning gone) and remanded with instructions gives very little if any wiggle room not to come to the same exact conclusion as did the Appeals Court opinion. Likewise, there is no way on God’s green earth it will get around the strict scrutiny standard regarding a constitutional right.

I read the opinion. I have a huge issue with the finding of this, and other courts that have stated:

“The Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law abiding citizens for lawful purposes …”

Consider the AR-15. This ruling states that clearly, the AR-15 and AK-47 are ‘commonly’ used (having had more manufactured and imported than the F-150 truck, the most popular vehicle) for lawful purposes, and no one here would argue. But, when the AR-15 first came out, it wasn’t in ‘common use’. No gun is. Even military arms are not COMMON. So, that suggests that no NEW gun holds 2A ‘protections’ because it is not ‘common’. FAIL FAIL FAIL.

Further, the courts continue to argue that MGs, SBS, SBRs and suppressors are not ‘common’, thus are not protected by 2A. The NFA Branch processed 150k TRUSTS for these items last year alone. I’ll go out on a limb and say that means in say the last 20 years, more than 3 million SBS, SBR and suppressors were purchased or made for use by the civilian for lawful purposes. To me, that makes it ‘common’, and used 100% for lawful purposes. Again, FAIL FAIL FAIL.

Lastly, I find their ‘Equal Protection Act’ does not apply ‘because LEO is a special class of people’. Uh huh. Replace ‘LEO’ with ‘White person’, or ‘Homosexual’ or any other ‘special class of people’.

Such failure.

Oh, and is my understanding of history off with their attribution here? I thought Armalite Rifles made the AR-15, and Colt purchased the rights to it:

And, in 1963, Colt produced the SP-1 semi-automatic rifle with a 20-round detachable magazine, later known as the AR-15, a semi-automatic counterpart to the fully automatic M-16.

This is a big victory for gun rights, but the headline of this article is 100% incorrect. (“Fourth Circuit Strikes Down Maryland’s ‘Assault Weapon’ and ‘High Capacity’ Magazine Bans”)

The Fourth Circuit did not “strike down” the semi-auto rifle or magazine bans. The Fourth Circuit reversed the district court’s decision to apply intermediate scrutiny, found that strict scrutiny was the appropriate standard of review, and remanded for further proceedings at the district court level. Some might say that strict scrutiny equals an automatic win for the plaintiffs, but that’s not true. The state will get an opportunity to present more evidence, if they want, before the district court rules on the case. It may be many months before a ruling from the district court… and that’s assuming it isn’t appealed, which it certainly will be.

But make no mistake, the decision of which standard of review to apply is where the real battle is. Not whether or not to “strike down” each individual ban itself. Because the standard of review impacts the entire category, while striking down a single ban is limited to its facts. That’s what makes this decision important. And that’s why you should change your factually-incorrect headline.

the decision of which standard of review to apply is where the real battle is

True, in more ways that you know. In the Heller/McDonald cases, SCOTUS declined to establish “strict scrutiny” as the standard, probably because Kennedy wouldn’t go along with the other four Justices who seemed to want it. Instead, SCOTUS fund that RKBA was a fundamental right and that the handgun bans were not sustainable under any standard applicable to fundamental rights cases.

It now appears that Kennedy is still squishy, and Roberts wants to avoid contentious 2A cases. So where are we?

First off it’s very common for a law to be struck down if strict scrutiny is applied. Most laws restricting rights can’t service strict scrutiny.

Second who cares is SCOTUS reviews this right away? Sure it would be great but not needed. This hurts the antis in some of the more restrictive ( blue) states in the country. If this decision stands and gets rid of the law it’s a huge victory. It’s. Not like a state ban is going to pass in Texas or OK.

It took a while to get strict scrutiny with 1a. It may take a while for 2a also. The important thing is to be on the offense and incrementally role back the antis. Not playing defense only and getting beat slowly over decades.

When it applies to that Circuit. Decisions are binding only within the boundaries of the Circuits themselves…so hope CA9 gets an AWB lawsuit and repeals the law or hope that SCOTUS does and makes it law of the land. Neither seem probable.

Despite all of the nice verbiage regarding the Second Amendment, the court of appeals did not decide on the constitutionality of the law. It kicked it back to the district court for a do over. Also, the other parts of the decision regarding equal protection and vagueness suck, and not in a good way.

They didn’t rule on it, but their instructions to the lower court leave little room to rule in favor of the Law. They basically told the lower court – you have no basis to rule the FSA constitutional. So rule on it properly. They did this to avoid an overturn in an En Banc ruling of the 4th circuit.

Supreme Court denied review of Friedman v. Highland Park in December. Richard Pearson & his brain trust at ISRA were feeling their oats after taking credit for passing Rep. Brandon Phelps HB183 carry bill in 2013. After they gave away Duty to Inform, criminal penalties of
6 MONTHS or 1 YEAR in jail for dozens of gun free zones, an unelected Star Chamber review board (which won’t be a problem in southern IL if you know the secret handshake) and no public transport carry (because ISRA really doesn’t care about black people in Chicago, except as plaintiffs) the good old boys were ready for the big time! Or so they thought.

After the insane clown posse down in Chatsworth gave away the kitchen sink to police unions in the carry bill, they did manage to get statewide preemption and a 10 day sunset on any new assault weapon bans. All Pearson had to do was retreat back to Chatsworth, swig down a scotch and call it a win. The hicks thought they could take on the Supreme Court, but they flopped on their faces again. Watching Pearson and the retards at ISRA try to take on D.C. is like watching a cluster of retarded pygmies attempting to play football with the Bears at Soldier Field.

Still trolling that dead horse huh “dem man”-was it “John” before? Once again-what are you doing for Illinois gun rights??? This is Maryland-worse than Illinois. And I don’t lose any sleep over Highland Park…

He’s NOT correct-The folks he lambasts are hero’s…and this is Illinois. You have to give to get with the azzwholes in charge. Quid pro quo as it were. That’s reality not the ridiculous BS ” shall not be infringed” absolutists who frequent TTAG. Plus the folks he reviles work tirelessly for MY rights.

Sam- the poster is a perfect example of the hayseed retards who see someone like Pearson on stage once and project their hero worship onto the rats who sell them out.

After NRA lobbyist Todd Vandermyde put Duty to Inform in Rep. Brandon Phelps HB183 carry bill which passed in 2013, that wasn’t bad enough for Richard Pearson of ISRA. Slipped though on Sunday, May 31, 2015, and trumpeted as an IMPROVEMENT to the IL carry bill by Pearson on ISRA.org, he didn’t tell the hicks what else they slipped into SB836, language supplied by the anti-gun IL State Police. I am not making this up:

“If a licensee carrying a firearm or a non-resident carrying a firearm in a vehicle under subsection (e) of Section
40 of this Act is contacted by a law enforcement officer or emergency services personnel, the law enforcement officer or emergency services personnel may secure the firearm or direct that it be secured during the duration of the contact if the law enforcement officer or emergency services personnel determines that it is necessary for the safety of any person present, including the law enforcement officer or emergency services personnel. The licensee or nonresident shall submit to the order to secure the firearm. When the law enforcement officer or emergency services personnel have determined that the licensee or non-resident is not a threat to the safety of any person present, including the law enforcement officer or emergency services personnel, and if the licensee or non-resident is physically and mentally capable of possessing the firearm, the law enforcement officer or emergency services personnel shall return the firearm to the licensee or non-resident before releasing him or her from the scene and breaking contact. If the licensee or non-resident is transported for treatment to another location, the firearm shall be turned over to any peace officer. The peace officer shall provide a receipt which includes the make, model, caliber, and serial number of the firearm.”

Note that ALL non-resident license holders must comply with the Duty to Inform, and the penalty is 6 MONTHS or 1 YEAR in jail! Watch out in IL. To understand clowns like Pearson, you need to know that they don’t believe in the law, they believe in Klan law. Example: “that will never happen to me, because I’m one of the good guys.” It is impossible to overestimate the stupidity of the southern IL gun hicks.

Pearson & ISRA didn’t lift a finger to promote concealed carry for 20 years, and now he’s claiming credit. You ever take a ride through Chatsworth IL to check out ISRA world headquarters? It’s Pearson’s insurance office. Pearson fought the IGOLD march tooth and nail for years, they didn’t want it to even happen.

Ever been to the carnival at the county fair? You just threw a baseball at the little hairy monkeys on the pole and hit the monkey fair and square. I have news for you, the monkeys are weighted. My dad taught me how to figure out that scam when I was seven years old. You’re the rube at the carny show and you got ripped off. Deal with it and look in the mirror.

Pearson is a buffoon with Bryl Cream in his hair and Vandermyde is a rat whose boss got taken down by the U.S. Attorney. The worse the carry bill the more money they make when the cops “accidentally” shoot you in the kidneys when they disarm you for “officer safety.” Call up Pearson and Vandermyde and ask them for help when you get paralyzed by officer Jon Burge. Let me know how that goes.

The California Rifle and Pistol Association is touting this as a major victory, but I am not celebrating wildly with them. It may take awhile and SCOTUS involvement ( which is roughly the equivalent of Russian Roulette in my book) to see any benefit from it.
It does, however, underscore the importance of getting a “not Hilary” or “not Bernie” POTUS in 2016 to make those next two SCOTUS appointments. Rand Paul has dropped-out and the race is now Trump, Cruz, Rubio or Carson, realistically. Cruz has demonstrated in the Iowa Caucus scandal why no one in Congress likes him and now I don”t like him either. Hopefully, Super Tuesday will seal the deal for one of them we POTG can all unite behind.
BTW NRA-ILA published this piece about Hilary Clinton supporting the appointment of ex-POTUS Barak Obama to the SCOTUShttps://www.nraila.org/articles/20160129/chief-justice-barack-obama
may be speculation by inference, but a terrifying possibility.

Someone must teach the legal department the true and real English language. In the second amendment – “The right to b arm” really means the right to serve in the Armed forces and to fight to protect the country. This was added to the old British rule that denied the right own weapons by the local forces who were fighting with the British rule of America.

Someone must teach the legal department the true and real English language. In the second amendment – “The right to bear arm” really means the right to serve in the Armed forces and to fight to protect the country. This was added to the old British rule that denied the right own weapons by the local forces who were fighting with the British rule of America. It is not for have automatic weapons and shot guns to shoot at neighbors or other law abiding citizens.

You are right, it is not about hunting or sporting. It is about maintaining parity with government such that government fears trying to dominate/subjugate the citizens. That does include having the same type weapons available to the potential tyrants/dictators. The militia, being the citizenry, is the military being served in. It exists all the time. What we have is a government the constitution is designed to control being allowed to dictate the means by which it will be controlled.

“Similar to the district court — and unlike the panel majority — I am far from convinced that the Second Amendment reaches the AR-15 and other assault weapons prohibited under Maryland law, given their military-style features, particular dangerousness, and questionable utility for self-defense.”

And herein lies the rub. The entire contemporary discussion about the 2nd Amendment is being framed by the terminology and logic of the anti-gun community. Here Judge King rationalizes, through the deeply flawed Heller decision, that only self-defense weapons are protected by the 2nd Amendment. The prefatory clause in the 2nd Amendment does have meaning. “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,…” Here our founding fathers explain the object of the Amendment; free State. So the Amendment wasn’t written to protect the right of defense of self, rather defense of State as a whole. Certainly they understood the necessity to own certain firearms to put food on the table and stave off criminals. Yet, the objects most necessary to defense of State must be those in common use by enemies of the State. Certainly there are such weapons, that by their nature, can be considered inherently dangerous. Plutonium and chemical weapons can, by themselves, cause great harm and therefor would and should be restricted under strict scrutiny and compelling governmental interest. However, firearms and most other common military weapons pose no risk to others in and of themselves. Parking a M1A1 or F-15 fully armed in your driveway presents no risk to others by themselves, all the way up to the point they are used to cause harm to another. The willingness of the courts to assign irrational characteristics to these inanimate objects come straight from the propaganda forwarded by the left. Malus prohibitum laws should never pass strict scrutiny without objective, quantifiable, and clear scientific evidence supporting the governmental interest.

Page 53. Likewise, “police have a duty to protect both the lives and the property of citizens.”

Hmmm. Could this be construed to conflict with earlier cases where law suits are denied for failure to protect?

I move that all prior and retired military should have at least the same rights as retired police and maybe more. Let’s face it, if SHTF and the ordinary citizens were called in to be a militia, law enforcement would probably be exempt. At least the ones who didn’t move to Canada whereas prior/retired military would likely be in leadership positions due to previous background and training.

After serving 21+ years and two years as a Drill Sergeant, I have never met a soldier who could miss a target every single round in firing a full mag from any weapon. Training or combat. How many police shootings can say this. Right – VERY FEW!

I would take a military person over a cop any day to defend my or my families life.

After retirement I have served as a part-time sworn officer. It a joke when it comes to firearms training. And most (not all) police officers use their firearms just like a carpenter treats his table saw. Use it when you use it but you don’t go the the wood shop several time a quarter to practice cutting wood. I know several LEO’s who have never shot a single round outside of semi-annual quals and in some cases had to do quals more than once to pass. But these guys in Maryland consider retired LEO’s as special.

Dez- Illinois is loaded with cop bootlickers like NRA lobbyist Todd Vandermyde and the retarded hicks in southern IL who vote for state Rep. Brandon Phelps. When Vandermyde cut the deal with police unions to put Duty to Inform in Phelps carry bill, Tim McCarthy was president of the IL Chiefs of Police. That’s the same Tim McCarthy who was a Secret Service agent when President Ronald Reagan was shot, and the same Tim McCarthy who does press events with Jim & Sarah Brady to promote gun control. I am not making this up.

I’ve met cops who think they are tough guys, but I’ve never met a tough guy who was a cop. The police unions in IL whined about how they just had to have Duty to Inform for “officer safety” but cops don’t have DTI, so that’s a lie. So what else is new, cops lie all the time. Drew Peterson was a cop Sgt. who used to work undercover narcotics, so the system taught him how to lie. He was good at disposing of bodies apparently, his wife Stacy has never been found.

Fishermen and farmers have more dangerous jobs than cops, but all you hear is the police unions crying about how they need armed citizens to give up their right to remain silent and their right to be treated as innocent until proven guilty with Duty to Inform. Then traitors like Vandermyde hand it to them on a platter so police impersonators can pose as cops to disarm, abduct, rape and murder armed citizens.
Great job!

Lucky for Vandermyde Chris Cox & Chuck Cunningham at NRA-ILA never set foot in IL to see what their pet rat is really doing, and the trailer park inbreds can’t read.